**1. Subject of the Dispute**
\nThe subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal by the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine to pay a military serviceman additional remuneration in the amount of 100,000 hryvnias for the period from February 24 to December 31, 2022, for direct participation in hostilities or the provision of national security and defense measures.<\/p>\n
**2. Arguments of the Court**
\n* The court of cassation instance emphasized that the courts of lower instances did not properly examine the primary documents (combat orders, directives) to which the plaintiff referred in his certificate of participation in hostilities.
\n* The Supreme Court noted that the courts did not establish the actual nature of the tasks performed by the plaintiff while serving as the Head of the Regional Directorate, and whether his activities fall under the concept of “provision of national security and defense measures.”
\n* An important argument was that the courts did not clarify how the documentation of the participation of a Head of a Regional Directorate should have been executed, given that he reported directly to the Head of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine.
\n* The Court emphasized that the “provision of measures” does not necessarily require direct engagement in combat with the enemy; therefore, the appellate court’s conclusion narrowing this concept solely to participation in combat is erroneous.
\n* The Supreme Court pointed out the necessity of verifying the authenticity of the certificate of participation in hostilities, as the defendants denied the fact of its issuance, citing the results of an internal investigation.
\n* The Court stressed that the absence of a relevant report or the failure to include a person in orders does not deprive a military serviceman of the right to remuneration if they effectively performed combat missions, which is confirmed by other evidence.
\n* Since the courts of first and appellate instances did not establish the factual circumstances of the case and did not examine the evidence, the Supreme Court deemed their decisions premature and inconsistent with the criteria of justification.<\/p>\n
**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
**Note:** In this decision, the Supreme Court refers to its previous position set forth in case No. 560\/3312\/23, where a clear distinction was made between the “conditions” and the “procedure” for payment of remuneration, emphasizing that departmental orders cannot narrow the grounds for receiving payments established by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168.<\/p>\n